Određivanje prostornog položaja grafta golenjače korišćenjem rendgenskog snimka posle rekonstrukcije prednjeg ukrštenog ligamenta

  • Aleksandar Djuričin University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad Serbia
  • Slobodan Tabaković University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Milan Zeljković University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Zoran Milojević University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Technical Sciences, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Radojka Jokšić Mazinjanin University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • Vukadin Milankov University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Medicine, Novi Sad, Serbia
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP210726029D
Ključne reči: ligament, prednji, ukršteni, rekonstrukcija, kompjuterski podržan dizajn, ortopedske procedure, radiografija, tibija

Sažetak


Uvod/Cilj. Rekonstrukcija prednjeg ukrštenog ligamenta jedan je od najčešće izvođenih hirurških zahvata kolena kod mladih osoba. Uspešnost tog zahvata u velikoj meri zavisi od pravilnog formiranja tunela koji se dobija bušenjem golenjače i koji služi za pozicioniranje i fiksiranje kalema. Cilj rada bio je da se prikaže metoda za određivanje prostornog položaja grafta na osnovu samo dva standardna rendgenska snimka. Metode. Istraživanje je izvršeno na grupi od 15 pacijenata kod kojih je razvijenim softverom primenjeno merenje ugla tunela u golenjači, na osnovu selekcije karakterističnih tačaka na dva standardna rendgenska snimka kolena (prednje-zadnja i bočna projekcija). Dobijeni rezultati upoređeni su sa rezultatima merenja ugla tunela u golenjači na snimcima kolena kompjuterizovanom tomografijom (KT) kod svih pacijenata. Rezultati. Ugao bušenja meren na KT snimcima u proseku je bio nešto veći (59,07° ± 5,61°) od ugla merenog primenom razvijene aplikacije (58,65° ± 5,89°). Dobijeni rezultati ukazuju na minimalne razlike, bez statističke značajnosti, u merenjima ugla tunela u golenjači, primenom razvijenog softvera i na KT snimcima (Wilcoxon test: Z = -1,363; p = 0,173). Zaključak. Prezentovana metoda i razvijeni softver pogodni su za svakodnevnu kliničku primenu sa stanovištva preciznosti i upotrebljivosti i mogu se primeniti za procenu položaja tunela u golenjači u procesu utvrđivanja uspešnosti operativnog zahvata ili u sklopu pripreme pacijenta za revizionu operaciju.

Reference

1. Irarrázaval S, Albers M, Chao T, Fu FH. Gross, Arthroscopic, and Radiographic Anatomies of the Anterior Cruciate Liga-ment: Foundations for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36(1): 9‒23.

2. Morris RC, Hulstyn MJ, Fleming BC, Owens BD, Fadale PD. Re-turn to Play Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Recon-struction. Clin Sports Med 2016; 35(4): 655‒68.

3. Filbay SR, Grindem H. Evidence-based recommendations for the management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2019; 33(1): 33‒47.

4. Melińska A, Czamara A, Szuba L, Będziński R, Klempous R. Balance Assessment during the Landing Phase of Jump-Down in Healthy Men and Male Patients after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Recon-struction. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica 2015; 12(6): 77‒91.

5. Barrera Oro F, Sikka RS, Wolters B, Graver R, Boyd JL, Nelson B, et al. Autograft versus allograft: an economic cost comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2011; 27(9): 1219‒25.

6. Gupta PK, Acharya A, Mourya A, Mahajan P. Comparison of pa-tellar tendon versus hamstrings autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in Indian population: A randomised control trial study. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10(3): 581‒5.

7. Chee MY, Chen Y, Pearce CJ, Murphy DP, Krishna L, Hui JH, et al. Outcome of Patellar Tendon Versus 4-Strand Hamstring Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Recon-struction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Pro-spective Randomized Trials. Arthroscopy 2017; 33(2): 450‒63.

8. Tan SHS, Lau BPH, Krishna L. Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Females Using Patellar-Tendon-Bone versus Hamstring Autografts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Knee Surg 2019; 32(8): 770‒87.

9. Wylie JD, Marchand LS, Burks RT. Etiologic Factors That Lead to Failure After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery. Clin Sports Med 2017; 36(1): 155‒72.

10. Thakrar RR, Yasen SK, Kundra R. Allograft use in anterior cru-ciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a review of the current literature. Orthop Trauma 2019; 33(2): 76‒80.

11. Milojevic Z, Tabakovic S, Vicevic M, Obradovic M, Vranjes M, Milankov MZ. The Tibial Aperture Surface Analysis In Anteri-or Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Process. Med Pregl 2016; 69(3‒4): 99‒105.

12. Jamsher M, Ballarati C, Viganò M, Hofbauer M, Togninalli D, Lafranchi S, et al. Graft Inclination Angles in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Vary Depending on Femoral Tunnel Reaming Method: Comparison Among Transtibial, Anterome-dial Portal, and Outside-In Retrograde Drilling Techniques. Arthroscopy 2020; 36(4): 1095‒102.

13. Lubis AMT, Kuncoro MW. Revision of failed-posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction due to tibial tunnel misplace-ment: A case report. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2019; 48: 105‒8.

14. Wada O, Gamada K, Aoyama N, Mizuno K, Iwasaki Y. A differ-ence in rotational alignment of the tibio-femoral joint after an-terior cruciate ligament reconstruction between the bone-patellar tendon-bone and semitendinosus-gracilis grafts. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2019; 65: 45‒50.

15. van der List JP, DiFelice GS. Range of motion and complications following primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee 2017; 24(4): 798‒807.

16. Yamazaki J, Muneta T, Koga H, Sekiya I, Ju YJ, Morito T, et al. Radiographic description of femoral tunnel placement ex-pressed as intercondylar clock time in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2011; 19(3): 418‒23.

17. Seo SS, Kim CW, Lee CR, Kwon YU, Kim MW, Kim OG, et al. Effect of Femoral Tunnel Position on Stability and Clinical Outcomes After Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Outside-In Technique. Arthroscopy 2019; 35(6): 1648‒55.

18. Tabakovic S, Zeljkovic M, Milojevic Z. Automated Acquisition of Proximal Femur Morphological Characteristics. Measur Sci Rev 2014; 14(5): 285‒93.

Objavljeno
2023/04/05
Broj časopisa
Vol. 80 Br. 02 (2023): Vojnosanitetski pregled
Rubrika
Originalni članak